cor_get_hours_by_date

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Without annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'Get time entries' without clarifying read-only nature, permissions, or behavior for missing dates. The minimal disclosure leaves significant gaps for safe invocation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Extremely concise: one sentence for purpose plus a parameter line. No extraneous text. Front-loaded with the action. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but spare. It doesn't mention edge cases, filtering behavior, or relationship to sibling tools like cor_search_time_entries. Could clarify that it returns all entries for the exact date.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'datetime_unix: Unix timestamp for the date', adding context beyond the raw schema (integer title). This clarifies the parameter's meaning and format, though further detail (e.g., timezone, precision) could improve.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Get time entries for a specific date', which identifies the verb (get), resource (time entries), and scope (specific date). It distinguishes from siblings like cor_log_hours (logging) and cor_search_time_entries (searching) by focusing on a single date retrieval, but could be more explicit about the return structure.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cor_search_time_entries or cor_get_working_time. The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.